Melchizedek?, Q & A

Audience Questions and Discussion

(1:23:30) Um, natural philosophy says, "The first time I heard of Melchzdc was in the Urantia book. Have you heard of it? And have you u do you have any thoughts?" So I I have heard of the Urantia book. I have not read it. Um um and so I didn't know that Melzdc was in there. if I had known that.

(1:23:48) Um that would that would have been interesting to include because it is different people have uh gone back to this. Well, and I'm interested to hear about that one. So anyway, that's very interesting. Um Kmpus Bradford or sorry, Fred Church, thank you sir for your support. Uh Kate Tempest Bradford asks, um other priests died and such. Jesus didn't die but he went directly to heaven but he's in heaven.

(1:24:11) That's just like being dead. He's not here. So how is that different? Well, so essentially um you know we're I think that we're talking about the a difference between the a kind of a um you know what was the older material physical uh cycle of you know how um it was necessary to essentially for humans to do rituals in order for the cosmos to continue to exist.

(1:24:40) But now um we are having a uh kind of now we've come to a different understanding in antiquity where um where people are are spiritualizing things. And so um the idea of it here is we previously had law and rituals and all these kind of things. That was our our original understanding of the covenant. But now we have a new understanding of the covenant which is which is more spiritualized. It's more about meaning.

(1:25:06) And so it's different because um because we are always connected uh so the as an intercessor before we weren't allowed to have any connection with God. God is God's presence is behind the veil. You can't go in there. The only one who can go in there is a human intercessor. The difference now in the Christian understanding is God's spirit is completely um poured out in upon all of us.

(1:25:32) So we can we can't see the unknowable creator because he's beyond. But we can communicate directly with God's word uh Christ who is is within us and so on as we understand it. So he's this bridge between us and and God. So that's how that's essentially how it's different. We need no intercessor to be able to communicate with uh with God in terms of the argument theologically here.

(1:25:59) Uh Ted Gimberling says,"Wh uh would the author of Psalm 110 mention this obscure figure?" So um so I was trying to argue that the idea of it is that um it it may not be obscure for the um let's say within the royal rituals. So if this psalm is so the psalms are not just like written by one guy and they're not written by David even though they say a psalm of David and some of them are more archaic than others and so this could be a a very archaic um um text that is like a a song that is in toned during rituals of the um the kingdom of

(1:26:45) of Judah. And so they're when they're saying the figure here, Melzdc, they're not they're not actually referring to a human being, anybody that ever existed. What they're saying is that the king himself is is a priest. He's now anointed. He's part of the order of righteous kings. And so it's in fact a u like a title that's given to the kings themselves understanding their sort of sacral their sort of sacral character.

(1:27:13) That would be my interpretation anyway of what um what Psalm 10 110 maybe means. Um if it's if it's not that if it's if it's mentioning you know if it has some other meaning and it is trying to refer to an obscure figure it is um yeah you'd have to ask why is why are they doing that? Um so K Tempest Bradford says if Hebrews says we don't need priests why the heck do we have priests? Well, um there's all kinds of things that or ideals that exist in uh in the early Christian texts and we haven't necessarily um followed

(1:27:51) all of the ideals. In fact, you can't follow all of them because they're contradictory with each other. So, the point of um biblical texts is that they're a conversation and they're in conversation with each other. um you know as we've seen again and again you know Paul's ideas about uh adherence to Mosaic law his ideas about um uh you know being made uh you know saved through through faith alone are very much at odds with the contrary authors that of the author of James and the other faction. So they can't both you

(1:28:26) know uh we can't have follow both fully and literally in the same way that some of the there are different um ideas about priesthood in the New Testament. So so Hebrews here has kind of a um uh let's say you know like the most kind of cosmic idea of priesthood. We don't need priesthood anymore because Jesus is the is the priest.

(1:28:51) Uh there are other ones that uh are more like uh in the epistle of Peter where the epistle of pe Peter are arguing um we all in the Christian community as we've all come together we've become a a nation of priests. So then we're a priesthood of all believers. And then there are other uh uh voices in the New Testament like the continuers of Paul who are writing letters like Titus uh uh where they're talking about the need to have you know elders and overseers you know who can um you know keep the flock in order.

(1:29:27) And so uh essentially what happens is is that um from a uh from a community that is initially centered around essentially mendicant prophets and apostles who are wandering around um uh having given away all property and taken essentially vows of voluntary poverty um and preaching by the spirit from having that sort of a a structure.

(1:29:55) Now um the the functioning Christian communities have seen the need well they've got to have some kind of an organization. We need uh to appoint deans or deacons over some of the temporal affairs. We need to have uh overseers to and elders to um operate how the community works since it's structured and this evolves into um a priesthood structure of bishops and priests uh that that ends up existing in the early church.

(1:30:22) So that's why we have priests even if some of the early Christians felt we didn't need them. Chris uh Preston Emperor Kersonen says, "Could Melzdc be a priest from another religion like how the wise men were Zoroastrians or maybe he was priest of another Canaanite god and he's maybe misinterpreted." So it's yeah that's possible.

(1:30:42) So I was even saying here how um you know one of the other interpretations one of the other etmologies for Melchazdc is that he it it could mean that um um Zedc the god Zadc is my king. So it could be a theopheric. So he could actually be you know that's where the the name might have come from.

(1:31:02) or uh like I say since he's constantly being talked about as a priest of of not of Yahweh but of Elon Lon so of lost most high maybe it is a priest from um you know the Canaanite religion of the priest of L um but in any event we you know it's not how it's meant by the time the editors have brought it together this seg this um segment and is being brought together by redactors into the Bible where L is already equated with with the L the God of Israel with Yahweh.

(1:31:38) Um Pasel Plakes, thank you for your support. Um Pabs uh G says, "Are there any mythical stories outside the Torah that have a similar archetype, i.e. a wandering king priest with almost godlike qualities. Uh who to whom tribute is paid. Um so I don't know if you mean you mean so if you mean outside the Torah but the rest of the Bible I'm not I'm not sure of any uh like that.

(1:32:11) Of course in in other kinds of um uh there are other kinds of mythologies maybe where um you know where there you know other kings in Greek mythology who go around and and ultimately are looking for a place to set up a kingdom and are ultimately led to the place where it's going to be. Um there are there are myths for that about how um how Romulus fights picks the sight of Rome or how Daido picks the uh the sight of Carthage.

(1:32:42) There's stories about that for thieves. So in a lot of cases when there is a kind of a mythic king founder that might might be sort of like that um in terms of godlike qualities. you know, there's sometimes, you know, sometimes um yeah, kings are a transition from older types of gods. Sometimes gods are sort of like kind of like half like titans as opposed to being the kind of the Olympian gods.

(1:33:07) And so, so I would say so, you know, we would just have to kind of look through all of, you know, mythology in antiquity to have that. So I don't think it's um you know it's not necessarily clear that um that you know in the original fragment that Mckzd has any god-like qualities. He's he assumes godlike qualities in the um in the retelling of his tale by the um the Enochian apo apo apocalyptic um Judeans and also in the um in the stories of the of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(1:33:42) And in those cases, what they're probably drawing on is more things like Zoroastrianism where they're where there's this apocalypse that's coming. There's this series of of saviors that are uh the divine figures on the side of the light as opposed to the the side of darkness and this cosmic battle that's going to end with uh an apocalypse.

(1:34:05) Uh Dark Sarian says, "Where is Mount Garism? Is it in the north somewhere?" So it is um yeah so it's up by uh Sheckchim in Samaria which is the um in the West Bank just a little bit uh north of Jerusalem. Uh says Robert uh Cargle's do I have any thoughts on Robert Cargle's work regarding Salem being a retcon later? um that initially he was the new king of Sodom after his father uh the earlier king died in the narrative.

(1:34:44) Um so I don't I haven't I haven't read that and so I don't necessarily know. It's it's um so like I said the problem with this fragment is it's so tiny that we we're it's not clear what we can make of it. And so there's all kinds of different theories that we can add which like I say almost have to be entirely speculative.

(1:35:04) And so so I made the case that maybe you know some scholars have said well maybe this whole um Melzdc king of Salem thing is just even an interpolation that this wasn't there but maybe like you're saying um what actually has happened you know another another potential speculation is that what's happened here is a um is there's been an edit and so somebody's crossed out Sodom and put Salem and so forth.

(1:35:30) Um, I don't know that that's uh that I find that convincing, but I haven't read the argument. So, you know, there's, like I said, at a certain point, we have so little I read almost the whole thing to you so that you could have the whole primary source and um whether or not you find those kinds of um you know, speculative propositions uh convincing or not.

(1:35:55) Uh so Balo Sopharaptor says I know the Abram story is a myth but isn't the Isaac thing happening on the temple mount another strike against it the city would have been uh on top of the hill all tal settlements were so um so well I wouldn't I don't know that we have to go that far to find that as the as the thing that makes the Abraham story a myth or the Isaac story a myth.

(1:36:19) Those are clearly myths. Um they're set way too far back. We don't have any um you know, we don't have any long oral tradition that brings us to them. The tradition that makes the thing happen that the Abraham story is set on on you know other words that the sacrifice is happening on Jerusalem that wouldn't we couldn't use that to disprove it because that's a tradition that's late.

(1:36:41) So I think that um uh the first time that that starts to get equated is with like the book of Chronicles which is itself a bunch of rewriting. And so it's um uh suggesting I think the original says that it that the sacrifice is taking place in the land of Mariah. Then in Chronicles it says that um it takes place on Mount Mariah and that Mount Mariah is another name for Jerusalem.

(1:37:02) But that's um so other words that's a that's a late rewrite as opposed to um something that that would indicate that the story didn't happen. We the story didn't happen for all kinds of other reasons. So, um, anyway, uh, Ron Wagner, was the city of Jerusalem created by Judeans or was it, uh, did exist before them? I've heard that the city is older than Judaism.

(1:37:32) So, um, so the Bible itself says that, um, it was populated by Canaanite people that were non-Judian. So, so the Bible narrative has um has a people called the Jebusites living there. And the reason why according to the Bible narrative anyway that David makes it his capital is that to make it be a neutral place. So, he's not in necessarily in any of the um occupied zones of any of the different tribes and he goes and he kicks out the Jebusites and then he makes that be their capital.

(1:38:02) Um I think the archaeology says that um the site is occupied uh maybe already by 3000 BCE and so it's a um you know it's definitely a a fortified city by the Bronze Age for a Canaanite city. Um but so again is it before though before you know Judans are there? So, so again the B Bible tells stories, you know, uh the create the origin myth for um Judeans.

(1:38:41) There's like two stories of um uh of where the people came from. So when you're having your your kind of origin story and you're making a myth about it, your story is either you guys came from somewhere else or you've always been there. And the the um the biblical origin stories, there's two of them essentially. Abraham has come from the land of the Chaldes.

(1:38:59) So he's come from Shinar and gone through the fertile crescent and and eventually settled in the land. And the other one is the Exodus story. So Moses has led people out of Egypt and they've come and settled in the land and and in the Joshua story, they kill everybody in order to seize the land. Um but but these are myths.

(1:39:22) um the they don't not uh they don't fit the archaeological data and and it doesn't also relate to the things that we can have like the the cultural data the the language that everybody has the the alphabet the um the pantheons and so on. So there's almost no distinction at all between um Canaanite language Phoenician Hebrew. They're all very um just little variations on each other.

(1:39:49) So it's not um foreigners that have come from someplace else. What's happened is is that there is a um an Israelite and a Ja Judean identities that emerged within uh Canaanites. So they are the Canaanites. And so um and so they wasn't necessarily before them, but it's before they considered themselves um a separate identity from their neighbors.

(1:40:13) Um WM consulting service says can Melzdc be related to the origins of Abraham in was Jerusalem a settlement of [laughter] no so so there's no in the in the story there's no sense that Salem has any connection to Jerusalem even it's just Salem in the in the mazes story itself and whether Salem is has any bearing on Jerusalem.

(1:40:44) That's a later idea that people have and it's not related to tor. So it is its own standalone fragment that's separated from um the other tellings that we have of the Abraham story which are taking place specifically especially in the uh the Yahwist or J source and then also some priestly uh peource narratives and this is its own um kind of separate little fragment and it that's not may not have anything to do with the idea that Abraham came from of the Chaldis uh says thoughts regarding the idea that later interpretation flipped on who was

(1:41:25) giving tribute that initially it was Abraham being given tribute from Melzdc. So, so some of the arguments that have been made, so people are are are definitely um let's say rabbitic sources are are aware of the criticism in in the epistle of Hebrews that this is showing that Abraham um is a uh is religiously inferior to Melzdc.

(1:41:50) And so then people point out, well, it's not clear that it's saying that Abraham paid tribute to Melzdc. The Hebrew here is um is indistinct. And so, and so it could just be the tribute is paid. And so, but um but I think that that's a weak uh counterargument. I think that it it does look like it's pretty clear that, you know, Abraham is paying the tribute to Melzdc.

(1:42:14) And so, I think the stronger argument that they made was well, Melzdc is Shem. You know, in other words, it's not not that it was, but it's that it's a it counters the counters that argument. So I don't think that there's a um the the the manuscript doesn't show that but it's something that um would it would have to involve that big edits have been made.

(1:42:34) Uh Kate Tempmpus Bradford um says uh I thought the book of Jasher was a forgery. So the book of Jasher is like I mentioned it's a medieval text. So the main book of Jasher as we have it. So there is a um there's there are references to an ancient book of Jasher that is part of the um the corpus of sources that the deuteronomic historians claim that they're have access to and are using.

(1:43:04) So that means that to say the people that are writing or composing compiling the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and uh Kings will occasionally say well isn't this all not written in the book of Jasher? Uh, so go ahead and read the book of Jasher because we're because I'm not going to talk anymore about this part.

(1:43:21) And so that's a a source that is lost and doesn't exist. But when people have a little thing that says that, then other people think, well, maybe I'll write my own book of Jasher and I'll claim that this was the original book of Jasher. And that's what this medieval um book is.

(1:43:39) So it's a medieval Jewish writer who has written a book of Jasher. And so it's a forgery in the sense that it is not the ancient book of Jasher. It's a book that is composed in the in the Middle Ages. Um JW Marino says, "I don't think I've ever seen you step off the screen enough to see the center of the spiral. Does the lion and lamb of the and the child have some special center place?" Yeah.

(1:44:03) >> Every time you've coughed, then we'll see what's behind. >> That's right. Normally, you don't get to see what's behind me, but um we've learned that me coughing on screen is not something that is enjoyable to everybody. And so what we've learned is I um I'm I can feel like a cough coming or I need a drink of water.

(1:44:19) And so then I step off the screen and Leandro is later going to edit this. And so that that makes that that segment where I'm off the screen coughing go away. But now you got to see uh the the symbol of the lion and the lamb and the child in the spiral behind me. Um and it does have a significance.

(1:44:38) So it it's a lion, lamb, and a child. And it says peace. And so this is uh the vision of of utopia uh that is expressed in um the uh the uh book of Isaiah where Isaiah says you know uh it's not doesn't immediately say the lion and the lamb shall lie down together. It talks about uh other animals and things like that but it gets it gets um shortened to have a lion and lamb will lie together and a little child shall lead them.

(1:45:10) And so the idea of it is is that this is a uh it's thinking forward of a of a of a utopia that we trying to try to achieve by um building more just communities where uh where it's not about the strong just taking advantage and abusing the weak, but rather where everyone can live in peace and harmony and justice.

(1:45:35) And so that's um sort of our vision of what we want to uh build the world towards in and that's the symbol here of centerplace and also our denominational symbol community of Christ. So thank you all so very much. I really appreciate that. Don't forget to like and share this video. Subscribe to the channel. Um if you're able uh to donate, we appreciate it.

(1:45:55) center c centerplace.ca/donate. And remember that next week, Leandro and I are going to be uh watching and commenting on The Last Temptation of Christ. Neither of us have seen it yet. We're looking forward to it. We'll tell you what we think next week. Thanks again.